184 Personality
Institutional Factors
The predominance of the psychometric approach in psycho-
logical research on personality was reflected in the Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychologyafter Prince offered to do-
nate the journal, once oriented primarily toward practicing
psychiatrists, to the American Psychological Association in
- The transfer of ownership took place on April 1, 1926
(G. W. Allport, 1938). Once social psychologist Henry T.
Moore of Dartmouth replaced Floyd Allport as cooperating
editor, the practice of publishing case studies declined dra-
matically, conforming with publication trends in mainstream
psychological journals where the proportion of reports fea-
turing individual data had been declining steadily since the
1910s (Shermer, 1985). During Floyd Allport’s first year as
cooperating editor (1921–1922), the instructions appearing
inside the front cover of each issue of the journal continued to
direct authors to send articles to Prince. Allport’s closer col-
laboration with Prince apparently resulted in only a small
change in selection standards after he moved from Harvard to
the University of North Carolina and assumed full editorial
responsibility in 1922 (see also G. W. Allport, 1938; Shermer,
1985). The announcement of Moore’s appointment requested
that contributors submit articles to him (Editors, 1925), and
he appears from the beginning of his tenure to have selected
articles according to “psychological” standards. Thus, the
proportion of empirical papers based on the study of individ-
ual cases dropped from an average of 65%, under Floyd
Allport, to 30% under Moore (see Shermer, 1985): “Their
place was taken by statistical studies based on group data”
(Danziger, 1990, p. 165). (Moore himself conducted group
studies using psychometric tests; see, e.g., Moore, 1925).
By the late 1920s, psychologists (e.g., G. W. Allport &
Vernon, 1930; Murphy & Murphy, 1931) and sociologists
(e.g., Bernard, 1932; Young, 1928) reviewing the personality
literature were explicitly identifying the psychometric ap-
proach with psychology, and life histories and case studies
with sociology and psychiatry. Although several of these au-
thors expressed positive views of studies of individual lives,
their recommendations that psychologists explore such meth-
ods appear to have had little impact (see, e.g., Parker, 1991).
Like Woodworth (1929), other authors of psychological texts
and reference works during the late 1920s and early 1930s
tended to view the case study as a “clinical” method (Roback,
1927a; Warren, 1934) and to express doubts concerning its
scientific status. For example, Symonds (1931) defined the
case study as “a comprehensive study of the individual,” but
remarked, “It should be emphasized at the outset that the
case studyis not a research method. Primarily its function is
to study the individual with a view toward helping him.”
Case study data might be used in research, he suggested, but
only if they consisted of “facts...obtained in a reliable, ob-
jective manner” using “scientifically valid methods” (p. 555).
In striking contrast to the sociological literature of the
period, psychological studies of personality reveal little con-
cern regarding the development of methods to study individ-
ual lives. The difference reflects a lack of institutional support
for case methods in psychology, as compared to the support in
sociology at the University of Chicago. One brief report of a
methodological debate concerning case study and statistical
approaches to personality, which took place in a “round table”
on personality at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association in 1930, suggests that case studies were quickly
dismissed as insufficiently reliable (Ruckmick, 1931). One of
the participants was L. L. Thurstone (Brigham, 1931), who
represented the statistical point of view in the sociological
debates at Chicago concerning case studies (Bulmer, 1984).
Thurstone’s allegiance to the experimental perspective in
psychology is revealed in his remark concerning personality
research:One of my principal interests in psychology to which I have
returned several times has been the study of personality....My
conflict here was that, on the one hand, the center of psychology
probably was the study of personality, but, on the other hand, I
was unable to invent any experimental leverage in this field. That
was the reason why I turned to other problems that seemed to
lend themselves to more rigorous analysis. (1952, p. 318)Professional ConcernsOur account of the early development of personality psychol-
ogy differs from that of C. S. Hall and Lindzey (1957), who
emphasize the influence of early personality theories based
on clinical practice. However, Hall and Lindzey’s perspective
reflects the post–World War II boom in clinical psychology
(Capshew, 1999; Herman, 1995) and a corresponding focus
in the clinical and personality areas on psychoanalysis and
competing theories of personality (see, e.g., Rosenthal,
1958). In contrast, during the 1920s and 1930s, American
psychologists were more concerned with meeting practical
demands for personality measures than with theory (Murphy,
1932; Vernon, 1933) and were particularly skeptical of
psychoanalysis (see, e.g., Danziger, 1997; Hale, 1971;
Triplet, 1983).
As many historians have observed, the enormous popularity
of psychoanalysis in American culture during this period posed
a threat to psychologists—particularly those working in ap-
plied areas—who were concerned with establishing their own
professional expertise and differentiating themselves from
pseudoscientists (see, e.g., Hornstein, 1992; Napoli, 1981).
Many psychologists attempted to dismiss psychoanalysts as
they dismissed the army of popular pseudopsychologists who